foolish
i have to admit that i have not had the time to review the book of revelations theory or look at the pictures it may have in common with the tarot. i am going mainly on dr. o'neill's impression that since it does not offer a complete expanation of all the cards, it falls into the same category as some of the others which offer partial explanations.
we have already established the fact that medieval art at the time the tarot was being developed was, in the most part, borowed from earlier sources. we have seen images of greek gods, astrological bodies, depictions of the virtues, etc. so it would not surprise me to learn that some images were taken from biblical sources as well. however, if the source in question does not explain the entire set of tarot images, then we can not say that it "solves the riddle". o'neill has shown, for example, that there are no images of the magician in the book of revelations. this in itself should dismiss the theory as the source of the tarot.
one question that comes up for me revolves around the fact that some people say that the whole theory of tarot revolves around its use as a moral instruction tool. others present the case that it was simply a card playing game. which one is it? or is it possible that the tarot had more than one use? if this is the case, then it could be possible that while many people sat around playing card games, others were looking into their moral values while still others may have used the cards for more secretive information. is it possible that the estblishment of one case as a historical fact does not negate the other?
in my mind, there was a definite motive for some to establish a secret system of preserving cathar messages, both historical and spiritual. the use of the tarot cards, with their universal images, seems quite the convenient tool. it is left to us to interpret these images within this context. if that can be done in a manner in which all of the cards, and not just some, are accounted for, then i believe we have to look at this.
another thing which shoud be taken into account is the fact that tarot decks went beyond using just the traditional symbology of the time. many cards in the visconti decks, for example, incorporate real personalities (maria visconti and francesco sforza in the loves) and symbols (some already metioned). this should impress us with the idea that the cards took on a very personal sense, and served not only to reveal moral truths, but also to impart real stories about their patrons.
in any event, i don't believe we should get stuck on just seeing the images at face value (although this goes back to your question as to why we should look any further than that). i will use the words of o'neill to address this:
"in the tarot and in the age when they were designed, one can expect that many orthodox symbols will be deliberately inserted into the system just to decieve the casual observer".
we have already established the fact that medieval art at the time the tarot was being developed was, in the most part, borowed from earlier sources. we have seen images of greek gods, astrological bodies, depictions of the virtues, etc. so it would not surprise me to learn that some images were taken from biblical sources as well. however, if the source in question does not explain the entire set of tarot images, then we can not say that it "solves the riddle". o'neill has shown, for example, that there are no images of the magician in the book of revelations. this in itself should dismiss the theory as the source of the tarot.
one question that comes up for me revolves around the fact that some people say that the whole theory of tarot revolves around its use as a moral instruction tool. others present the case that it was simply a card playing game. which one is it? or is it possible that the tarot had more than one use? if this is the case, then it could be possible that while many people sat around playing card games, others were looking into their moral values while still others may have used the cards for more secretive information. is it possible that the estblishment of one case as a historical fact does not negate the other?
in my mind, there was a definite motive for some to establish a secret system of preserving cathar messages, both historical and spiritual. the use of the tarot cards, with their universal images, seems quite the convenient tool. it is left to us to interpret these images within this context. if that can be done in a manner in which all of the cards, and not just some, are accounted for, then i believe we have to look at this.
another thing which shoud be taken into account is the fact that tarot decks went beyond using just the traditional symbology of the time. many cards in the visconti decks, for example, incorporate real personalities (maria visconti and francesco sforza in the loves) and symbols (some already metioned). this should impress us with the idea that the cards took on a very personal sense, and served not only to reveal moral truths, but also to impart real stories about their patrons.
in any event, i don't believe we should get stuck on just seeing the images at face value (although this goes back to your question as to why we should look any further than that). i will use the words of o'neill to address this:
"in the tarot and in the age when they were designed, one can expect that many orthodox symbols will be deliberately inserted into the system just to decieve the casual observer".